WeHo Recovery Center mourns loss of Board VP John O’Neil
Triple A: Gas prices tick up before holiday weekend
New on the LA County Channel
North Hollywood parents protest Pride event at elementary school
Harvey Milk Day kicks off WeHo Pride season
WeHo Recovery Center mourns loss of Board VP John O’Neil
Harvey Milk Day kicks off WeHo Pride season
LA Drag Nuns: 1st public appearance after LA Dodgers controversy
WeHo’s ‘We’ve Always Been Here’ art installation up at City Hall
WeHo City Council votes 4-1 to add four Sheriff’s positions
North Hollywood parents protest Pride event at elementary school
Out social media celebrity JoJo Siwa’s Valley home burglarized
Rubio bashes LA Dodgers over honoring drag group, Dodgers fold
RuPaul’s DragCon 2023 slays at L.A. Convention Center
“Terminating Hate” Schwarzenegger leads panel on extremism
Palm Springs police arrest gay dating app predator
Longtime LGBTQ+ journalist & editor Thomas Senzee dies at 54
Trans Palm Springs Mayor responds to anti-LGBTQ+ Texas Governor
Historic swearing in of Lisa Middleton as Palm Springs Mayor
Everything you need to know about Palm Springs Pride this weekend
San Diego to open 45 bed LGBTQ youth homeless shelter
The San Diego Union-Tribune: Tijuana Gay Men’s Chorus
San Diego County man charged with a hate crime after homophobic attack
Trans woman ‘viciously attacked’ in men’s jail cell lawsuit says
US Navy Fleet Oiler & supply ship, USNS Harvey Milk launches
NY woman indicted: Threatened Colorado LGBTQ+ businesses
Bill to ban healthcare for trans youth defeated in Louisiana Senate
Montana bans drag queen stories in libraries, restricts public shows
Target Corp. moves Pride to the back in some Southern States
Southern Utah Drag Stars file lawsuit over drag show permit denial
Intersex Kenyans see significant gains under landmark law
Transgender journalist who enlisted in Ukrainian military returns to U.S.
Uzbek authorities harass activist at European development bank meeting
Pakistan court rules against trans individuals as contrary to Sharia
14 year-old schoolboy brutally beaten in Ireland for being gay
Queer, Armenian, global health leader; now political candidate
LA Times Poll: Majority of Californians say Feinstein is unfit to serve
DeSantis stumbles into 2024 race with chaotic announcement
DeSantis to announce presidential bid on Twitter live with Musk
Newsom demands answers about censorship of text books
Target & Bud Light show hypocrisy of “Corporate Pride”
The long exhale to recognizing same-sex unions in Namibia
LGBTQ+ teachers should be celebrated, not demonized
As the public health emergency ends, a humanitarian crisis begins for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers
Do LGBTQ+ people REALLY need allies like the Dodgers?
We don’t need another hero, there will only ever be one Tina Turner
Star Trek stars back striking WGA writers, queer actors picket
LA Dodgers apologize, reverse decision on disinviting drag group
Google ‘Doodle’ honors Native American lesbian activist
Out director brings queer perspective to mainstream with help from DeNiro
Short-form ‘Smothered’ is long on laughs
For musical fans, the TV series of the spring is ‘Up Here’
The Kelly Clarkson Show: Unique LGBTQ+ youth summer camp
A song of love & courage for Grandpa Ray- American Idol 2023
Trans trailblazer helps queer the sci-fi genre in ‘The Peripheral’
Meet the non-binary star of Dan Levy’s ‘The Big Brunch’
The annual LA Times 101 list is here at last
Hit Instagram smash burger pop-up Chris N Eddy’s debuts in Hollywood
LA’s comeback, a lesbian community leader has a starring role
West Hollywood’s ‘Out On Robertson’ official launch
Peppermint to shower LA in her brand of sweetness
New LA production finds the trans heart of iconic ‘Spider Woman’
“Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992” is a uniquely “LA” play
Latino Theater LA: Mexico City’s Organización Secreta Teatro
Echo Theater Company presents ‘That Perfect Place’
Out director brings queer perspective to mainstream with help from DeNiro
Genres blend and genders bend in ‘Broadway’
Weisz shines twice in gender-swapped ‘Dead Ringers’
Remembering classic film after death of an unsung queer pioneer
‘Sylvia’ summons queer horror comedy at its comedic best
Bowie-inspired Tripping Jupiter elevates both music & gender
Don we now our gay apparel: Bryan Ruby’s new Country Christmas
Streisand’s ‘Live at the Bon Soir’: Birth of a diva
From Gay Old Time to Proudly Queer: the Grammy Noms Deliver
Riding the joy train with Amy Ray
Chasten Buttigieg’s new book a comforting read for teens
When artists we love behave badly
Nonbinary poet unmasks society’s gender expectations in new collection
Infidelity becomes an art form in ‘Love, Honor, Betray’
New book traces an icon’s journey into clothes, clubs, couture
If it passes, the Montana bill, much like the Tennessee legislation, is likely to be found unconstitutional and immediately enjoined in court
Published
on
By
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – Today, Montana’s Senate Judiciary Committee considered HB359, a bill that seeks to prohibit “drag performances” in public spaces and label any establishment hosting a drag show as a “sexually oriented business.”
The bill’s broad language and far-reaching implications have sparked fierce opposition, as opponents argue it could target theater productions, the transgender community, Pride events, and beyond.
A representative from the local theater scene voiced concerns over the bill’s potential impact on plays such as Peter Pan, Rent, and Mrs. Doubtfire. Another witness warned that the legislation might even extend to Halloween costumes, illustrating the bill’s potentially sweeping consequences.
The bill, which has already passed the Montana House, would be the second drag ban enacted in the United States if it passes. Earlier this year, Tennessee passed a drag ban that used very similar language. That bill was blocked in court by a federal judge, who stated that he could see “at least three ways” in which the bill was likely to be found unconstitutional.
Montana’s bill is even more extreme than Tennessee’s. While Tennessee’s law was amended at the last minute to adopt a narrower definition of obscenity based on the Miller Test, Montana’s version contends that drag is obscene and illegal when performed in public if it “incites lustful thoughts” in an observer. This vague criterion implies that if a single individual finds a performance titillating, it could be deemed illegal.
See the portion of the bill specifying these criteria:
When this bill was originally heard in the House, Democrats attempted to amend the bill to state that the conduct would only be illegal if it had the “intent to incite lustful thoughts.” This amendment was voted down by Republican proponents of the bill, showing that they do not care about intent and seek to criminalize drag if even a single person finds it sexually appealing. It then passed the House on a nearly party-line vote.
Today, many opponents testified as the bill reached the Senate Judiciary Committee. Several members pointed out that the bill would almost certainly be found unconstitutional due to the judge’s ruling in Tennessee. Kegan Medrano from the ACLU used language directly from the Tennessee ruling, stating, “It is unconstitutional censorship, it is content based restriction and such restriction is subject to strict scrutiny.”
Additional critics of the bill argued that it could potentially ban theater productions such as Peter Pan, Mrs. Doubtfire, Rent, and even Shakespeare plays that incorporate drag elements.
This concern was highlighted by Corinne Woods, Managing Director of Grandstreet Theatre, who noted that the bill could jeopardize any theater staging a play featuring drag. The possibility that a single audience member finding the performance arousing might lead to a theater’s license being revoked—due to being classified as a “sexually oriented business” under the proposed legislation—would be too high of a risk for many theatres.
Another witness testified that sometimes, she and her husband do cross-gender costumes for Halloween. She then joked that she “could not control other people’s lustful thoughts,” raising the point that the bill could target any form of gender nonconformity in public. The entire committee burst into laughter in her testimony, including many Senate Republicans:
"There are a number of times where, for instance, on Halloween I dress as peter pan and my husband dresses as tinkerbell. I cannot control other people's lustful thoughts."
Everyone erupts in laughter, including Republicans on the committee. pic.twitter.com/TK1u9O6M4B
The bill is likely going to be considered unconstitutional the moment that it passes, should it pass. Multiple witnesses from organizations testified to this effect. That is because this bill defines drag as illegal in public if it “appeals to the prurient interest,” which is only one part of the three part Miller Test that the supreme court has used to determine if an obscenity law that restricts speech is constitutional. In order to be constitutional, the Miller test specifies that speech can be considered obscene if it fills all of the following requirements:
Because the bill only specifies drag performances that “appeal to the prurient interest” would be illegal, the law would fail the Miller Test requirements. Family-friendly drag does not depict in a patently offensive way any sort of sexual conduct.
Furthermore, family-friendly drag very obviously has artistic and political value. Even the “prurient interest” portion that is in the Montana bill is only a part of Item 1 of the Miller Test – the bill does not, for instance, specify that contemporary community standards need to be applied.
If it passes, the Montana bill, much like the Tennessee legislation, is likely to be found unconstitutional and immediately enjoined in court for several reasons. By explicitly mentioning “male or female impersonators,” the bill targets specific types of speech or expression rather than focusing solely on obscene conduct, making it non-content-neutral. Furthermore, the bill’s vague and overly broad language creates ambiguity, as terms like “male and female impersonator” remain undefined.
This lack of clarity raises questions about whether the bill would apply to drag performances in plays, Halloween costumes, or even transgender individuals. Additionally, its extensive application to all public spaces could be considered overly broad and not narrowly tailored, further undermining its constitutionality. These factors contributed to the injunction against the Tennessee bill in court just last week.
Opponents to the bill vastly outnumbered those in favor. Only 3 people spoke for the bill in person and a few others testified online. Meanwhile, dozens testified against the bill. This led to the bills sponsor, Representative Braxton Mitchell, to grow frustrated and exclaim when he closed on his bill that “nobody here has jobs anyway.” The bill will then go for executive action soon, where Senators will decide whether or not to move it to the full Senate floor for final passage.
******************************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
Follow her on Twitter (Link)
Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Candace Owens: Existence of trans people is Frankenstein
“Stand up fight back!” – Trans Day Of Visibility brings huge crowds
NY woman indicted: Threatened Colorado LGBTQ+ businesses
We don’t need another hero, there will only ever be one Tina Turner
Target & Bud Light show hypocrisy of “Corporate Pride”
Montana bans drag queen stories in libraries, restricts public shows
Target Corp. moves Pride to the back in some Southern States
Southern Utah Drag Stars file lawsuit over drag show permit denial
GOP blitz on LGBTQ issues exposes fractures in Texas Democrats
LA Dodgers apologize, reverse decision on disinviting drag group
LA vs Hate presents ‘Summer of Solidarity’
LA Drag Nuns: 1st public appearance after LA Dodgers controversy
Gov. Bill Lee just signed into law a bill that would define sex to exclude trans people & require it on all legal documents
Published
on
By
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – Gov. Bill Lee enacted Senate Bill 1440 today, which redefines sex in Tennessee’s legal code in a manner that excludes transgender individuals from legal protections.
The bill stipulates sex as “immutable at birth,” and “defined by anatomy and genetics existing at the time of birth” under all state laws. The legislation could profoundly impact transgender residents, threatening their anti-discrimination protections and access to certain services like shelters.
It also would mean that transgender people could not change their sex on their drivers licenses or birth certificates – something that every other state before this year allowed.
The actual bill is short – barely half a page – and presents a simplistic definition of sex. Proponents of the bill often suggest it “changes little” or merely “establishes a definition,” yet for transgender individuals, this bill fundamentally alters their rights.
Prior to its passage, gender markers on driver’s licenses in Tennessee could be modified according to the National Center for Transgender Equality. Until today, changes required “a statement from the attending physician that necessary medical procedures to accomplish the change in gender are complete.”
This new definition of sex will be used across countless legal documents, the implications of which may not be fully realized for years to come. It’s only through future court cases that the full impact of this new definition will be tested and understood. The newly implemented definition reads as follows:
There are clear and immediate problems with this definition of sex. It entirely excludes intersex people and does not provide any clarity on how intersex people should be treated under this law. Not all intersex conditions easily lean in a binary fashion. Some intersex conditions have both ovarian and testicular tissue present. Some intersex conditions, such as Mosaicism, can cause this. The law provides no clarity for the definition used for of these individuals.
The bill is also flatly discriminatory. Legal precedent exists protecting transgender people as covered under sex-based discrimination. The Supreme Court sided with transgender people in 2021 under the Bostock v. Clayton County decision. In Bostock v. Clayton County, which was heard over discrimination in employment law, the Supreme Court decided 6-3 with Neil Gorsuch writing the majority opinion that, discriminating against transgender people is sex discrimination: “When an employer fires an employee for being homosexual or transgender, it necessarily and intentionally discriminates against that individual in part because of sex.”
Gender marker changes are important for trans people. When stopped in an airport, when presenting your ID for age verification at bars, or when requested by police officers, having mismatched IDs can cause uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous situations. The 2015 US Transgender Survey reported that as a result of showing incorrect IDs, 25% of transgender people experienced verbal harassment as a result. You can see the results here:
Social transition is a major part of transition, and laws like this one in Tennessee target social transition. Changing legal documents in and of itself results in better mental health outcomes for trans people. A survey from the Trevor Project confirmed that gender marker changes and correct legal documents could reduce suicide risk by more than 50%:
Tennessee joins several other states that have passed similar laws recently. North Dakota and Kansas enacted comparable legislation earlier this year, with Kansas going a step further to restrict bathroom access for transgender individuals, although it lacks enforcement mechanisms for this provision. Similarly, Montana passed a law excluding transgender people from 41 sections of its legal code. This same law famously led to Rep. Zooey Zephyr being silenced, at which point she raised her microphone in a show of solidarity with protesters.
These recent laws clearly show an alarming trend that targets not only transgender youth and athletes, but also transgender adults. They insidiously strip away all legal protections and recognition for trans individuals. They are also signify a sweeping societal setback – up until this year, trans people could have full legal recognition.
By eliminating the ability to amend documents and stripping away anti-discrimination protections, these laws push transgender people towards precarious situations and effectively treat them as second-class citizens in comparison to their cisgender peers. Tennessee has shown disregard for these concerns this year, as it hastens to demote transgender citizens to that status.
************************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
Follow her on Twitter (Link)
Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
The wording of the ban raises serious concerns that many transgender adults are in imminent danger of arrest once the law comes into effect
Published
on
By
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – Today, Ron DeSantis posed with several children as he signed multiple laws targeting the transgender community.
One law expands “Don’t Say Gay” to the 12th grade, bans books, and bans updating pronouns, making transition in a school environment much more difficult. Another uses obscenity laws to potentially target drag events, which has already led to pride parades being cancelled.
Yet another bill bans gender affirming care for trans youth and bans nurse practitioners — the providers of nearly 80% of gender-affirming care — from treating trans adults. The most troubling bill, though, is a ban on transgender people in bathrooms that comes with criminal charges and jail sentences.
House Bill 1521 will effectively give second-class citizen status to transgender people in Florida. The wording of the bill states that if a cisgender person is in the bathroom with a transgender person, an employee can tell the transgender person to leave. Should the transgender person not leave immediately for any reason, they will be charged with criminal trespass, which can carry sentences of up to 1 year in jail – likely a jail of the wrong gender identity, which will put trans people in immense danger of sexual assault.
While the provisions do not ban all bathroom usage, they cast a wide net over an alarming number of locations that would fall under definitions of “public” in the bill. This includes all buildings owned or leased by any governmental entity, educational institutions spanning from elementary schools to private colleges and universities, numerous hospitals owned by universities, many sports arenas, convention centers, city parks, beaches, airports, and more.
You can see the provisions on public bathrooms here:
Many transgender people erroneously believe they will be exempt from this law due to updated gender markers and birth certificate changes. The Florida bathroom ban specifically defines sex in a way that does not utilize legal sex or birth certificate sex. Instead, it states that sex is determined by this law as “indicated by the person’s sex chromosomes, naturally occurring sex hormones, and internal and external genitalia present at birth.” It then defines male and female based on reproductive capacity.
As a result, enforcement might involve criminal investigations into transgender people’s sex based off of profiling alone. Transgender people may be forced to undergo genitalia exams, DNA testing, and historical investigations if they are accused of violating the bathroom ban.
See the definitions used for sex in this law here:
The bill will result in many arrests of transgender people based on the wide range of places that it applies to as well as the lack of knowledge on how sex is defined and will be applied. Worse, many transgender people will risk arrest by going into the bathroom that the state law requires trans people to enter. Transgender people who are androgenous or pass as their gender identity will likely be challenged in the bathroom of their birth sex. Those trans people will then be forced to undergo the same investigation into their gender. In essence, it amounts to a ban on bathrooms for transgender people entirely.
Due to the way that laws go into effect in Florida, the bathroom ban will go into effect on July 1st – the day after Pride Month.
The bathroom bill would be bad enough, but DeSantis signed three other anti-trans bills into law as well. One of the most problematic of those bills is a ban on most gender affirming care for transgender adults. Senate Bill 254 bans gender affirming care for trans youth and bans nurse practitioners from providing gender affirming care to trans adults. SPEKTRUM Health, a provider in Florida, has indicated in an exclusive interview with Erin In The Morning that up to 80% of all gender care in the state is provided by nurse practitioners – a statistic in line with information provided by Planned Parenthood.
Already, people are losing access to medication in Florida and Lana Dunn of SPEKTRUM Health has stated that transgender people are having appointments cancelled by medical organizations around the state. This is because unlike the bathroom ban, which goes into effect July 1st, SB254 has an immediate effective date. Due to penalties provided by SB254, many medical providers have determined they can no longer provide that care.
Medical appointments are not the only thing being cancelled – a third law signed by DeSantis is an obscenity law that will likely be utilized to go after pride parades and drag. Senate Bill 1438 has an immediate effective date and has already led to cancellations of pride events, including the Treasure Coast Pride Parade.
The final law signed by DeSantis was House Bill 1069, a Don’t Say Gay expansion, attacks trans and queer people in new ways. Transgender people will not be able to share updated pronouns with their classmates and students. It will also allow for challenging of books in libraries that have LGBTQ+ topics and will expand existing Don’t Say Gay provisions to the 12th grade. This will go into effect on July 1st.
The effective dates of these laws are as follows:
Collectively, these laws represent a direct affront to the liberties of transgender and queer Floridians, marking the most radical assortment of laws targeting transgender people ever ratified by any state. The bathroom ban, in particular, if permitted to take full effect, may serve as an ominous blueprint for other states that have exhibited an interest in passing anti-transgender legislation this year. Given the escalating, heated rhetoric and increasingly draconian laws that typically gain traction across the nation after Florida’s endorsement—a pattern we have observed consistently over recent years— it’s plausible that such a bathroom ban will emerge as a legislative template in 2024.
As it stands, transgender Floridians are unwittingly stepping into a perilous landscape, and if the law is vigorously enforced, the impending surge of arrests will likely take everyone aback in the coming months.
********************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
Follow her on Twitter (Link)
Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Florida passed a law that has banned gender affirming care for trans youth as well as Medicaid coverage for trans adults
Published
on
By
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – On August 11th, last year Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration banned gender affirming care coverage from Medicaid. Meanwhile, the board of medicine proceeded to ban gender affirming care for transgender youth.
To do this, they relied on a newly created “Standards of Care” for the treatment of gender dysphoria that was rife with errors and omissions. Now, new court filings show that the Florida Surgeon General’s Office and the Agency for Health Care Administration purposefully manipulated this research to justify banning gender affirming care, including a flow chart produced before the “research” was commissioned with the explicit end goal of “care effectively banned.” Worse, they utilized a consultant from a religious conversion therapy organization to do so.
The newly minted Florida “Generally Accepted Professional Medical Standards Determination on the Treatment of Gender Dysphoria” were released in June 2022, and within a month, Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration banned gender affirming care coverage.
Florida’s board of medicine relied on it heavily in their ban on gender affirming care for transgender youth as well. The document, which claims that “gender affirming care” is experimental and does not meet medical guidelines, was immediately slammed by scientific and medical organizations and experts.
A Yale Review scathingly criticized the report, stating, “We are alarmed that Florida’s health care agency has adopted a purportedly scientific report that so blatantly violates the basic tenets of scientific inquiry… So repeated and fundamental are the errors in the June 2 Report that it seems clear that the report is not a serious scientific analysis but, rather, a document crafted to serve a political agenda.”
Now, we have direct evidence that this was the case. In a lawsuit aiming to reverse Florida’s Medicaid ban, the discovery process unearthed documents from the Florida Surgeon General’s Office. These papers reveal the unambiguous objective of the research: to arrive at an outcome where “care is effectively banned.” See this flowchart obtained in discovery documents:
To make matters worse, the Surgeon General’s Office of Florida, which is supposed to make its decisions using rigorous scientific and medical standards, tapped leaders from the misleadingly named American College of Pediatricians (ACP), a conversion therapy organization designated as a hate group by the Southern Policy Law center, to consult on its production. Emails show that Jason Weida of Florida’s AHCA was put in touch with Dr. Andre Van Mol, a religious fundamentalist and conversion therapy supporter who chairs the adolescent sexuality committee of the American College of Pediatricians.
You can see this email, unearthed by anti-LGBTQ+ extremism researcher Zinnia Jones from discovery documents in Florida:
Dear Jason and Trey,
Due to two unforeseen family crises, I must decline serving as a consultant for the State of FL at this time. My well-credentialed and equally expert in GD colleague, Dr. Andre Van Mol, has agreed to take my place so I am introducing him to you in this email.
Dr. Van Mol is a practicing Family Medicine physician in CA. In addition to being published on matters of medical ethics and childhood GD, he is Chair of the Adolescent Sexuality Committee of the American College of Pediatricians and a spokesperson for the Christian Medical and Dental Associations. He will be an outstanding consultant for your team in terms of provision of and analysis of studies. He has catalogued the literature as long as I have.
Dr. Van Mol would go on to promote documents created by the ACP in order to get them enshrined into Florida’s medical literature. One such document was developed in January 2023 and was discovered due to a massive leak of documents by the organization. This document is quoted by Jones as being a “129-page file of references and sources for anti-trans arguments, attributed to Andre Van Mol and dated January 2, 2022” – you can find a full link to the first version of the document in Jones’ research. The slightly updated document was directly sent to the AHCA with a few additions in order to help develop their standards of care with the explicit goal to ban trans care and can be found in the court filings.
This document houses much of the now-known-to-be deliberately distorted research that Yale scientists denounced as flagrantly unscientific. For example, Yale researchers highlighted how the Florida Standards of Care recommend that trans youth should not receive any medical care, asserting that psychotherapy alone, termed “watchful waiting” by the Florida standards, is adequate for trans youth. To validate this, the standards lean heavily on a criticisms from a single doctor, Dr. James Cantor, while overlooking studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of gender-affirming care in reducing suicides. All justifications for this approach, including the dependence on Cantor, can be traced back to the documents from the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) that Dr. Van Mol utilized and passed on to the Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA).
Dr. Van Mol himself is a noted proponent of “reparative therapy” and “sexual orientation change efforts.” He has published multiple articles in favor of conversion therapy, including an article that claims that “homosexuality can be changeable” and that there is “no evidence of harm” in sexual orientation conversion therapy, despite research showing that conversion therapy raises suicide rates by as much as 800%. In a recent video discussing conversion therapy, Dr. Van Mol advocates for conversion therapy and asks for pastors supporting LGBTQ+ people to repent.
The Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration and the Florida Surgeon General are now incontrovertibly implicated in distorting research to further their objective of banning gender-affirming care. The manipulated research was facilitated using materials generated by a Christian fundamentalist conversion therapy group, the American College of Pediatricians, and a consultant advocating for sexual conversion therapy, Dr. Van Mol, with the end goal of banning care explicitly spelled out.
The newly established “standards of care” in Florida have been lambasted for flawed interpretations of scientific papers, selective omission of critical facts, and the incorporation of unsubstantiated pseudoscience reviews by Yale researchers. Such practices, in an academic context, would warrant severe sanctions and spell the end of careers for those involved. It amounts to academic misconduct on a scale rarely seen, particularly given the subsequent use of this research to deny care to tens of thousands of Floridians.
The manipulated research has begun to infiltrate other scholarly arenas. A recent British Medical Journal article, “Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement,” cited the Florida study to question the appropriateness of gender-affirming care as the standard medical approach to gender dysphoria. Subsequently, an expert in the case of Dekker v Weida, which contests the ban on gender-affirming care, referenced the BMJ’s article to back the ban. Ironically, that very article partly relies on Florida’s manipulated research!
It reveals a striking lack of integrity for those involved in Florida to question the scientific validity of the care standards for transgender individuals, given that the state’s research findings were deliberately tampered with to endorse banning such care. The court will assess these arguments when deciding whether to overturn the rule prohibiting Medicaid coverage of gender-affirming care in the months ahead. Documents uncovered during the discovery process will be instrumental in shaping the final judicial decision.
***************************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
Follow her on Twitter (Link)
Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Changing working conditions in Hollywood are threatening the ability to sustain diverse voices and content
Published
on
By
By Rob Salerno | HOLLYWOOD – The future of queer representation in film and television could be at stake in the ongoing negotiations between the Writers Guild of American and the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers, many people are saying at the WGA strike enters its third week.
The WGA is broadly demanding better pay and better working conditions for film and television writers, alleging that studios are increasingly demanding unpaid labor from writers and reducing writing jobs in television. They’re also demanding limitations on the use of artificial intelligence in drafting scripts. The WGA says these developments are making writing in Hollywood unsustainable for the vast majority of writers.
Rob Forman, Co-Chair of the WGA West LGBTQ+ Committee, says the WGA’s demands will help support the development and advancement of queer talent in Hollywood.
“I don’t necessarily think this WGA action targets queer content so much as it targets the career growth of queer creators. Because with small rooms and short orders and inability to train on set and get experience, we’re not training up as many queer showrunners and creators as we could,” he says. “Queer writers having that track record and credit sheet is as important to getting that content as the idea itself.”
Gay literary manager Garrett Greer says the career track for writers has broken, and that’s already causing hiring issues in Hollywood.
“Basically, because the pipeline has been broken so long, there aren’t a more diverse array of writers in these upper-level jobs because they haven’t gotten the opportunity to grow to that,” he says. “So many times I’ll get the call looking for an upper-level ‘insert demography here,’ and I’ll say, ‘cool, all those people are working,’ because there’s so few because they haven’t had the opportunity to grow into those jobs.”
Increasingly, studios have been trending toward smaller “mini-rooms” – writing rooms with fewer staffed writers, hired for shorter periods, often without assistants and without including employment on set or during post-production.
Greer says the WGA’s demand for minimum writing staff sizes on television shows could have an important impact on diverse content.
“[With guaranteed staff sizes] there would be a constellation of writers of varying levels and perspectives. When it’s a mini-room, the showrunner is like, ‘great, I’ll hire two of my buddies,’ and they’ll likely be similar to the showrunner, and statistically, that’s a straight cis white man. Hopefully, this will increase opportunities and foster a wider diversity of voices in those rooms, because there would be spots in those rooms,” he says.
Often a writer from a diverse background will get hired as a staff writer in a mini-room, and be the only diverse voice in the staff.
“They get a staff writer who has to be the voice of that point of view to a showrunner, and they’re the ones with the lowest currency in the room. They can’t even be the squeaky wheel,” Greer says.
It hasn’t been lost on writers that studios’ moves to make writing an unsustainable career path is happening right as the push for more diversity in writing rooms and on screen is bringing more queer people and people of color into the industry.
“Whether its coincidence or causal, the fact of the matter is there’s a push for diversity and a simultaneous downward pressure on writer salary and opportunity. I would like to think better of our creative partners in studios,” Forman says. “We didn’t ask for the business model to be broken. We’re not asking for the business to go back to the way it was. We deserve a piece of what we create.”
Forman says that a lot of people outside of the writing side of the industry don’t understand the demands that are placed on writers to do unpaid work.
“In development, there are months and months of work that isn’t compensated,” he says. “If you were in a writer’s room 40 weeks a year for a 22-episode show, no one would be complaining about what we’re complaining about now, but again, that model was broken.”
These pressures impact feature film writers as well. Often feature writers are pressured to spend months developing or rewriting a script without receiving pay, an practice the WGA is seeking to rein in.
Up-and-coming bisexual screenwriter Lynn Yu says she’s experienced this firsthand.
“In what’s known as screenwriting bake-offs, a studio will put out an assignment for writers to have a take on this idea, or a job that’s up for a rewrite, and in order to get those jobs, sometimes you’re turning in ten-page outlines, whipping up pitch documents, all of which is uncompensated. You’re taking meetings and feedback and this can go on for weeks at a time, and if you don’t get the contract, you spend all of that time for nothing,” she says. “It’s very possible for a writer to spend a whole year pitching on four or five projects and nothing comes to fruition.”
The expectation of free labor limits who can afford to pursue screenwriting as a profession, Yu says.
“It’s definitely going to favor people who are privileged enough to be able to sustain living in a city like this with little to no income, whether that’s people who come from money, nepo babies,” she says.
While the WGA’s demands to limit the use of AI for writing has generated headlines about the fear of AI simply limiting job opportunities for writers, Forman says the use of AI may have a more insidious effect on diverse content, particularly queer content.
He says that because AI text generators work by scouring existing content to use as ‘inspiration’ for its texts, scripts generated by AI will likely be informed by works that have historically underrepresented or poorly represented queer and trans people and other diverse voices.
“Because of how homophobic and transphobic society has been and continues to be in many ways, the texts that this AI is learning from and pulling from when it’s trying to create, are never going to be as inclusive of our community as we want it to be,” he says. “I don’t look forward to AI remixing hoary old tropes that exist out there instead of people growing up and telling the story they never got see.”
“For a community that’s had to look into the subtext of movies to find itself represented because for so long you couldn’t have a gay character, it’s up to us to tell our own stories.”
*******************************************************************************
Rob Salerno is a writer, journalist and actor based in Los Angeles, California, and Toronto, Canada.
Most media coverage on the impact of SB254 in Florida has focused on trans youth- in reality, it threatens 80% of all trans adult care
Published
on
By
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – A new Florida law threatens to disrupt up to 80% of gender affirming care for transgender adults, yet this impact has been largely underreported. The legislation, SB254, has been passed and will go into effect when signed by Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida.
It has caught the eye of LGBTQ+ media primarily due to its impact on transgender youth as outlined in the bill’s provisions: it outright bans gender affirming care for this demographic, and may also introduce complexities in custody scenarios where parents disagree on affirmation.
While the majority of discourse around SB254 focuses on its repercussions for transgender youth, a provision that has received less attention within the bill is already spelling disaster for transgender adult care. The legislation bars all nurse practitioners from offering gender affirming care and imposes additional restrictions on informed consent care for transgender adults. Considering that nurse practitioners provide the majority of gender affirming care, this could drastically reduce the number of providers, lowering it to a level that is unsustainable for Florida’s transgender patient population.
In an exclusive conversation with Lana Dunn from SPEKTRUM Health, the clinic has indicated that it is getting a near constant influx of phone calls from patients whose appointments are being cancelled. Reasons for cancellation include that the care is too difficult to provide now given new liabilities introduced by this law and restrictions on perscribers. While SPEKTRUM is still providing care, Dunn indicates that they are in an uncomfortable limbo:
“We have thousands of patients at SPEKTRUM, all of whom are eagerly trying to get their appointments in before the law goes into effect and we simply have no way to keep up with the demand. Our team has been working feverishly throughout all of this to meet the demand,” Dunn says.
When asked about organizations that are ceasing care, she even indicated that once the law takes effect, SPEKTRUM may have to cease care: “Here at SPEKTRUM we are operating at the highest capacity possible until such a time as the law goes into effect at which point we will have no choice but to cease providing gender affirming care.”
The provisions causing trouble for organizations are seen here:
These provisions taken together spell out requirements for providers of gender affirming care that will drastically lower its availability to transgender adults. SPEKTRUM has confirmed that at least 80% of all gender affirming care is provided by nurse practitioners in the state. This matches with data from my informed consent hormone therapy map – very few of the locations go to MDs/DOs. Planned Parenthood, which provides a huge amount of the care, primarily uses nurse practitioners to administer that care – all of my personal care has been handled by nurse practitioners, as seen from Planned Parenthood’s FAQ on gender affirming care:
The alarming aspects of the new legislation are not limited to the provisions that prevent nurse practitioners from providing gender affirming care. The law also targets this care through various other channels. For example, one provision grants the board of medicine authority to adopt emergency rules for implementing the new law. The board has already demonstrated its willingness to overstep existing law by introducing rules – earlier this year, it imposed a ban on gender affirming care for transgender youth, despite lacking legislative instruction to do so. This ban is currently under judicial review.
In a similar vein, the attorney general of Missouri recently issued a series of burdensome guidelines that essentially obstruct gender affirming care for most transgender adults with a complex web of rules, making the care nearly impossible to legally provide. This decision, however, has recently been blocked in court for at least two months. The provision in Florida’s law, which grants rule-making authority to the board of medicine, could potentially be wielded in a similar manner to further restrict care.
The legislation also requires misinformation in informed consent forms that must be handed to and signed by every patient. Though the final version of the form is not available, earlier versions have statements erroneously claiming that the care does not conform to generally accepted medical practices. Over 29 major medical organizations maintain gender affirming care as the standard of care for trans people.
See the proposed form from 2022 when the issue was first discussed by the Florida Department of Health here, documented by Zinnia Jones:
It remains to be seen how medical organizations and transgender adults will react to the bill if it is signed into law. It is clear that at least some major medical organizations feel that the care is highly threatened, with many being forced to cease providing it. The impact of this legislation could rival and even surpass other states where restrictions are currently being fought over, such as in Missouri where several trans adults were pulled from care before the policy enacted there was blocked. When combined with a recent transgender bathroom ban, Florida is quickly emerging as the state most hostile to transgender people in the United States.
*****************************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
Follow her on Twitter (Link)
Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
While the travel ban was meant to combat discrimination against the LGBTQ community, it failed to address the root cause of the issue
Published
on
By
By Serena Sonoma | SACRAMENTO – It was in 2016 when California established a travel ban, preventing state-funded travel to states that have passed laws discriminating against LGBTQ individuals.
The political landscape was a tinderbox of tension and division as Donald Trump emerged victorious in the 2016 presidential election, sparking a firestorm of controversy that would ignite a fierce battle over transgender rights. In 2017, upon taking office, he quickly dismantled protections for transgender students, igniting a spark that would set the nation ablaze.
North Carolina became the epicenter of this explosive conflict, as a controversial bill known as HB2 mandated individuals to use restrooms corresponding to their gender assigned at birth, sending shockwaves of discrimination through the transgender community. The air was thick with the scent of unrest and uncertainty as protests erupted and citizens stood up to fight for their rights and dignity, casting a beacon of hope in the midst of a dark and turbulent time.
As the nation grappled with the complexities of discrimination and the need for deeper systemic change, California’s travel ban served as a symbolic gesture of solidarity with the LGBTQ community. However, the ban’s implementation was fraught with controversy and complications, leaving many wondering if it was the right approach to address the root cause of discrimination.
Even Governor Gavin Newsom, who championed California’s travel ban, faced criticism for taking a family vacation to Montana, a state that is on the travel ban list due to its anti-LGBTQ laws. Newsom argued that the trip was privately funded and did not violate the travel ban, but the controversy raised questions about the effectiveness of such measures. Critics argue that travel bans offer only a surface-level solution to discrimination and may even hinder progress by creating a false sense of accomplishment.
According to a report by the Human Rights Campaign, there are currently 340 anti-LGBTQ bills being considered at the state level across the country, with 150 of them targeting transgender people, the highest number on record. These bills range from prohibiting transgender students from participating in sports to denying them medical treatment. The LGBTQ community faces significant discrimination, and the travel ban, though well-intentioned, failed to address the root cause of discrimination against the LGBTQ community.
Instead of tackling the underlying societal issues that lead to discrimination, the ban simply punished states that had passed discriminatory laws.
Gay Assemblymember Evan Low (D-Cupertino), who authored the legislation, remains convinced that the state travel ban is an effective policy. ‘We don’t have any intentions of backing down and changing our position on the state-funded travel ban,’ stated Low. ‘Unfortunately, right-wing politicians across the country are working to pass hundreds of laws that are harmful to LGBTQ people, and we’re going to stand firm in our decision.’
Low believes that now is the time to show that California isn’t going backward. ‘In 2016, when we passed this law, we didn’t tolerate discrimination in our state and beyond our borders. Seven years later, we still don’t, and won’t.’
However, the implementation of the ban was flawed. The ban relied on individual state agencies to self-report their travel plans, making it difficult to enforce. In a report by the California State Auditor, several state agencies were found to have violated the ban by traveling to banned states.
The lack of enforcement and oversight made it clear that the ban was never going to work effectively. Despite this, Low and other supporters of the ban remain committed to the policy and believe that it sends a strong message of solidarity with the LGBTQ community.
Instead of relying on ineffective measures such as travel bans, California needs to take a more proactive approach towards combating discrimination against the LGBTQ community. Examples of these could include:
Investing in programs like these would be a much more effective way for California to promote acceptance and understanding of the LGBTQ community. By providing targeted support and resources, the state could help to create a more inclusive and accepting environment for LGBTQ individuals in California. Additionally, by passing laws that protect the rights of LGBTQ individuals, the state could help to ensure that all Californians are treated fairly and equally.
In San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors recently voted to lift a ban on contracting with companies in anti-LGBTQ states. The ban had been in place since 2015 and prevented the city from doing business with companies based in states that had passed laws discriminating against the LGBTQ community. However, the ban was difficult to enforce and was not addressing the root cause of discrimination.
In addition, California recently became a refuge for transgender individuals seeking healthcare. The state passed a law that requires health insurance plans to cover transgender healthcare, including gender-affirming surgeries and hormone therapy. This law provides crucial support for transgender individuals who face significant barriers to receiving healthcare.
Last week state Senate leader Toni Atkins announced new legislation that would replace the current ban with an advertising campaign that promotes acceptance and inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community in the states that were previously banned.
The campaign would be funded by a special fund that would accept private donations and state funding. Overturning the ban might be difficult in the California Legislature, where 10% of lawmakers identify as LGBT. Low supports the advertising campaign but said that alternative action is required to combat discrimination before ending the state-funded travel ban. The ban currently includes 23 states, and it has complicated some of the Democrats’ policy goals in surprising ways. The new legislation will be formally introduced on Thursday and must be vetted by lawmakers in both the state Senate and state Assembly before it can become law, a process that could take several months.
Whether the advertising campaign would have the same impact as the current travel ban is an area of contention. The ban sends a strong message that California will not support states with discriminatory policies, whereas an advertising campaign may not have the same level of impact or be taken as seriously. Additionally, the effectiveness of the campaign may be limited if it is not well-funded or if it is not targeted to the right audiences.
However, by investing in education and outreach programs and passing laws that promote equality, California can create a more just and equitable society for all of its residents.
In a room of supporters, Senate leader Toni Atkins acknowledged the negative impact the current ban has had. She noted that it has hindered academic research and athletic opportunities for college students, and it has also isolated LGBTQ individuals in states that were previously banned. Furthermore, Atkins believes that the ban has made it difficult for California lawmakers to share their progressive agenda with policymakers across the nation.
As she stated, “We should, as legislators who have put forward the most LGBTQ-friendly, reproductive rights, racial justice bills, we should be in all of those states to be able to share our experience.”
Editor’s note: On Monday, a day after publication of the above piece, the Office of Assemblymember Evan Low responded with the following statement:
“Asm. Low’s statement included in this story no longer reflects his position on the issue. His office said he understands the need for the travel ban to be changed due to it no longer being effective and is working on an alternative proposal.
Low said when the travel ban was introduced, it was effective and put economic pressure on states which caused outside state legislators to pull discriminatory bills. Low’s office also noted that he is working with Sen. Atkins on the repeal effort but has not decided whether he will support her proposed legislation as it stands.”
***************************************************************************************
Serena Sonoma is a transgender writer who focuses on intersectional feminism from an LGBTQ+ lens. Her work has appeared in Vox, Out, Teen Vogue, The Advocate, Harper’s Bazaar, and various other national and local newspapers.
U.S. religious activists stoke anti-gay sentiment in Africa and how a new, extreme law in Uganda will affect the lives of gay Ugandans
Published
on
By
NEW YORK – Frank Mugisha, executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda, talks with Rachel Maddow about how U.S. religious activists help stoke anti-gay sentiment in Africa and how a new, extreme law in Uganda will affect the lives of gay Ugandans.
A bill targeting most transition care was advanced by the Texas Senate. This could make it virtually impossible to get gender affirming care
Published
on
By
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – In a startling move yesterday, the Texas Senate passed one of the most extreme pieces of legislation aimed at gender-affirming care. While the majority of American bills targeting transgender care have focused on youth, the Texas law takes it a step further, potentially stripping essential care from countless transgender adults.
Instead of implementing a direct ban on care like other bills, this legislation insidiously imposes a prohibitively onerous financial disincentive, which could effectively leave physicians unable to provide the necessary treatment.
This alarming development marks a significant escalation in anti-trans legislation, as it now targets adults and mirrors a concerning trend recently observed in several other states.
Senate Bill 1029 outlines a series of constraints designed to render gender-affirming care virtually impossible to provide. One such constraint stipulates that health insurance companies covering gender-affirming care would face increased liability to transgender patients.
Another limitation bars the use of “public money” for gender-affirming care – a vague restriction that could result in entire hospital systems, which receive any public funding, being unable to offer this care.
Most alarming, however, is a provision granting doctors lifetime liability for providing gender-affirming care, even in the absence of malpractice. This provision would mean that doctors would not be able to maintain malpractice insurance that covers their practice and thus would be unable to provide care.
Collectively, these restrictions bear a striking resemblance to TRAP Laws (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers), which are often employed to obstruct abortion care within a state.
You can see the doctor liability provisions here:
Taken together, these provisions could effectively bring an end to the majority of gender-affirming care in the state. With a doctors being unable to utilize malpractice insurance and the prohibition of public funds and Medicaid coverage for care, access to treatment may become increasingly limited.
The increased risk to private health insurance providers serves as a means of discouraging coverage, while targeting doctors who provide the care further exacerbates the situation. As a result, both transgender adults and providers may encounter insurmountable barriers to accessing necessary treatment.
Should it pass, Texas would become the second state to implement such extreme measures against adult care, following Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s order, which essentially prohibits gender-affirming care for most transgender adults in the state.
Local activists and organizations agree. In an interview with the Texas Tribune, Christopher Hamilton of Texas Health Action stated, “It really is just an attempt to chill health care for all trans people.”
Texas is the latest state to target gender-affirming care for transgender adults, but we have witnessed similar actions in other states as well. Missouri recently imposed a series of stringent restrictions on gender-affirming care.
In a baffling Catch-22, Missouri’s new guidelines necessitate resolving issues like depression and anxiety before initiating gender-affirming care while simultaneously demanding severe dysphoria to qualify for the treatment. Since severe dysphoria often causes anxiety and depression, successfully addressing these mental health concerns might result in dysphoria no longer being classified as “severe,” thereby prohibiting treatment.
Conversely, if a doctor cannot alleviate the depression and anxiety, the treatment would still be banned due to “unresolved mental health issues.” Ultimately, this leads to a de facto ban on all transgender care. The Missouri policy is being heard in court in hopes of obtaining a temporary restraining order blocking it from taking effect.
Gender affirming care is proven to save lives. It reduces anxiety and depression, helps give transgender people congruence with their own bodies, and aids in existing as a member of their gender identity in public.
One recent study showed a 73% lower suicide rate for people allowed to medically transition, and similar drops in depression and anxiety. Another showed a 40% reduction in attempts over the last year. There are many more studies that have been done on this care – The Center for the Study of Inequality at Cornell University compiled 51 such studies showing the medical and psychological benefits of transitioning for trans people.
In recent years, we have seen an increased targeting of adult gender affirming care by major figures and organizations in the anti-trans movement. Genspect and Transgender Trend, well funded and active organizations campaigning on behalf of anti-trans laws, have lobbied to increase healthcare bans up to age 25.
Michael Knowles and Matt Walsh have recently gotten fully behind transgender “eradication,” with Matt Walsh recently stating that gender affirming care should be available to nobody. This is significant given Walsh’s hand in drafting and supporting anti-trans bills.
As legislative sessions continue across the nation, we can expect more of these bills and policies to emerge. Heading into 2024, this issue is likely to become more nationalized as presidential candidates and far-right Republicans attempt to exploit the fear campaign they have instigated against gender-affirming care.
Fortunately, there is a glimmer of hope for the transgender community, as anti-trans legislation and candidates who champion these platforms often lack widespread popularity during elections. The outcome of the 2024 election cycle could prove crucial in safeguarding transgender rights for the foreseeable future.
*************************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
Follow her on Twitter (Link)
Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Representative Zooey Zephyr gave an impassioned speech against an anti-trans gender-affirming care ban. Republicans want to censure her
Published
on
By
By Erin Reed | WASHINGTON – Yesterday, Rep. Zooey Zephyr delivered a powerful speech against anti-trans legislation in Montana. She spoke vehemently against Senate Bill 99, which would force youth to medically detransition, emphasizing the suffering it would inflict.
In her closing remarks, Zephyr shamed lawmakers for even considering the damaging legislation. In response, the majority leader asserted that the body “would not be shamed.” Rep. Zephyr answered sharply, “Then I hope the next time there’s an invocation and you bow your head in prayer, you see the blood on your hands.”
Later that evening, Republicans who belong to the Montana Freedom Caucus, a far-right group of legislators, released a letter calling for her resignation. They released the letter on twitter and misgendered her several times in both the tweet and the letter itself.
Our Caucus is calling for the immediate censure of transgender Rep. Zooey Zephyr after his threatening and deeply concerning comments on the House floor earlier today. #mtpol pic.twitter.com/fDggbLKsJS
Advocates for transgender rights condemned the letter. Organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, PFLAG, and The LGBTQ+ Victory Fund rallied to Rep. Zephyr’s side. PFLAG tweeted in response, “Misgendering her as you call for decorum? Do. Better.”
Misgendering her as you call for decorum?
Do. Better.
Here is the speech that scared the Freedom Caucus in Montana so much that they felt the need to call for censure:
Calls among the far right grew to censure her. Charlie Kirk, who was quoted as saying he wanted trans people to be dealt with “the way we dealt with it in the 50s and 60s,” a clear call for lynching, replied in the Freedom Caucus’ support. Fox News released a story with a fiery headline. Even Montana’s congressperson representing Montana’s 2nd district, Representative Matt Rosendale, came in support of the Freedom Caucus.
In response, Representative Zephyr released a statement where she does not back down and instead declares that she will never stop fighting for transgender youth. In it, she closes off with the signature line, “With Pride and Determination.”
Here is her full letter:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, April 19, 2023
Representative Zooey Zephyr’s Response to the Call for Censure and Continued Commitment to Advocating for Transgender Rights
HELENA, MT – In response to the Montana Freedom Caucus’ call for my censure, I stand by my accurate description of the devastating consequences of banning essential medical care for transgender youth. The recently passed Senate Bill 99 is a part of an alarming trend of anti-trans legislation in our state, which includes over a dozen unconstitutional bills. These bills ban our art forms, our stories, our healthcare, and our very existence in Montana code. Policy by policy, republicans are legislating the eradication of queer and transgender people from public life.
During the debate on Governor Gianforte’s amendments to Senate Bill 99, I made the following statement: “If you are [denying gender-affirming care and] forcing a trans child to go through puberty, that is tantamount to torture, and this body should be ashamed.” After Majority Leader Sue Vinton interjected to say that the Republican party “would not be shamed,” I closed my speech by saying, “Then the only thing I will say is if you vote yes on this bill, I hope the next time there’s an invocation, when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands.”
I recently shared a letter from an emergency room physician highlighting the life-threatening impact these bills have on our transgender youth. The physician recounted the story of a young transgender patient who attempted suicide, stating “My state doesn’t want me.” This is a stark reminder of the real-world consequences of these hateful and harmful bills.
It is disheartening that the Montana Freedom Caucus would stoop so low as to misgender me in their letter, further demonstrating their disregard for the dignity and humanity of transgender individuals. Their call for “civility and respect” is hypocritical given their actions.
As Montana grapples with critical issues like healthcare, education, and our state’s housing crisis, it’s disappointing that some legislators prioritize targeting the trans community over addressing these concerns. Our resources should be aimed at fostering a safe, inclusive, and prosperous environment for all Montanans, regardless of their identity.
Ultimately, I am unconcerned with the Montana Freedom Caucus’ call to censure me. I stood on the floor to speak on behalf of my community, and as long as I am a member of the Montana Legislature, I will never stop fighting for trans people in our state. These actions only strengthen my commitment to promoting equality and justice for all Montanans.
With Pride and Determination—
Representative Zooey Zephyr
Montana’s 100th District
***************************************************************************************
Disclosure: Representative Zooey Zephyr is the author’s romantic partner.
***************************************************************************************
Erin Reed is a transgender woman (she/her pronouns) and researcher who tracks anti-LGBTQ+ legislation around the world and helps people become better advocates for their queer family, friends, colleagues, and community. Reed also is a social media consultant and public speaker.
Follow her on Twitter (Link)
Website here: https://www.erininthemorning.com/
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was first published at Erin In The Morning and is republished with permission.
Today marks 2 weeks since right-wing media began obsessing over trans TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney’s sponsorship with Bud Light
Published
on
By
By Bobby Lewis | WASHINGTON – Fox News has joined the rest of right-wing media in a full-fledged freakout over trans TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney making a promotional video for Bud Light.
This nearly two-week obsession largely overlaps with potential new federal restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, a story which Fox News has seemingly been eager to sideline in favor of more Bud Light panic.
From April 7 to April 13, Fox covered the ridiculous Bud Light story for 1 hour and 42 minutes, compared to 43 minutes for the far more consequential ruling about mifepristone. And that timeframe excludes several of Fox’s heaviest days covering the Bud Light story, which has been a fixture on the network since April 3.
Approximately 82% of Fox’s Bud Light coverage came from the opinion division, while 65% of mifepristone coverage was from the network’s “news” side. This suggests that Fox’s biggest stars were eager to bury the politically unpopular abortion pill story and instead engage viewers with anti-trans outrage — which has dragged on for nearly two weeks as mifepristone access remains a major story.
Fox News and the rest of right-wing media have stoked many anti-LGBTQ panics over the years, and the fanatical obsession with Mulvaney is part of a broader campaign to eliminate transgender people from public life altogether.
That campaign also includes attacks on and bans against gender-affirming care, drag performances, and educational policies and library books inclusive of LGBTQ students.
On April 7, a federal judge in Texas paused the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, more than 20 years after the fact. According to The Washington Post, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that the pill will remain available for now, but only within the first seven weeks of pregnancy — as opposed to the first 10 weeks approved by the FDA — and it cannot be sent by mail.
These restrictions are slated to go into effect the evening of April 14 unless put on hold by the Supreme Court.
Despite the obvious newsworthiness of the rulings, which could set up another major victory for the anti-choice movement, right-wing media would rather have its audience yelling about transgender people and so-called woke corporations than making too much noise about the deeply unpopular criminalization of abortion, which is already losing winnable races for Republicans.
Instead of acknowledging that, Fox News has now spent almost two weeks pushing bigoted content attacking Dylan Mulvaney and Bud Light. Voices on the network have denounced Bud Light’s embrace of “womanface” as proof that “white men are not acceptable unless you wear a dress and lip liner,” and that corporations which are “ideologically captured by this woke virus” will continue to “denigrate all of society.”
Media Matters searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for the term “abortion” within close proximity of any of the terms “medication,” “pill,” “chemical,” “drug,” “mifepristone,” “misoprostol,” “Kacsmaryk,” “Rice,” “Texas,” “Washington,” “Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine,” “AHM,” “Alliance Defending Freedom,” “ADF,” “Food and Drug Administration,” “FDA,” “lawsuit,” “suit,” or “sue” or any variation of the term “prescribe” from April 7, 2023, when two federal judges issued conflicting opinions on the legality of mifepristone, through April 13, 2023.
We also searched transcripts in the SnapStream video database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for any of the terms “Bud,” “Mulvaney,” “Anheuser Busch,” or “Budweiser” during the same time period from April 7, 2023, through April 13, 2023.
We timed segments, which we defined as instances when either of the decisions from Texas or Washington state or the Bud Light controversy was the stated topic of discussion, or when we found significant discussion of either of the decisions or the controversy.
We defined significant discussion as instances when two or more speakers in a multitopic segment discussed either of the decisions or the controversy with one another.
We also timed mentions, which we defined as instances when a speaker mentioned either of the decisions or the controversy without another speaker in the segment engaging with the comment, and teasers, which we defined as instances when the anchor or host promoted a segment about either of the decisions or the controversy scheduled to air later in the broadcast.
We rounded all times to the nearest minute.
******************************************************************************************
The preceding article was previously published by Media Matters for America and is republished by permission.
Trans-youth leaps to death off overpass in New Hampshire
LA Dodgers apologize, reverse decision on disinviting drag group
Bozeman Pride marred by white supremacy, anti-LGBTQ+ groups
Chasten Buttigieg’s new book a comforting read for teens
Anaheim invites drag group rejected by Dodgers to Angels Pride
5 years later: No answers how gay man was found critically injured
LA Drag Nuns: 1st public appearance after LA Dodgers controversy
When artists we love behave badly
As the public health emergency ends, a humanitarian crisis begins for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers
We don’t need another hero, there will only ever be one Tina Turner
© Copyright Los Angeles Blade, LLC. 2023. All rights reserved